Prepared by: 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

March 2009 

Volume I: Report 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and 4(f) Evaluation

for the proposed 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train

Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada 

The need for a high-speed rail service system stems from several factors, including high and 

increasing travel demand with limited increases in capacity on Interstate-15 (I-15), constraints to 

the expansion of air travel, and frequent automobile accidents on the I-15 corridor. The 

DesertXpress high-speed passenger train would provide reliable and safe passenger rail 

transportation using proven high-speed rail technology that would be a convenient alternative to 

automobile travel on I-15 or air travel to and from Las Vegas, and that would add transportation 

capacity in the I-15 corridor. Potential environmental impacts of the alternatives include land use 

and community effects, conversion of agricultural land, impacts on sensitive biological resources 

and wetlands, visual impacts in scenic areas of the Mojave Desert, impacts on historic properties 

and archaeological sites, impacts on parks and recreation resources, impacts to hydrological 

resources, air quality effects, noise level impacts, energy effects, traffic impacts on I-15 and near 

station locations, effects on utility and public service providers, impacts to geology and soils, and 

impacts on hazardous material sites. Mitigation measures and strategies are described to avoid 

or minimize potential impacts. 

___________________________________ 

The Draft DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 

being made available to the public in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act for a 

public review and comment period, ending Friday, May 22, 2009. Public hearings will be held as 

shown below. 

Las Vegas Area

April 28, 2009 

5:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m 

Hampton Inn Tropicana 

4975 Dean Martin Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89118 

Barstow Area

April 29, 2009 

5:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. 

Ramada Inn

1511 East Main St 

Barstow, CA 92311 

Victorville Area

April 30, 2009 

5:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. 

Green Tree Golf Course Club House 

14144 Green Tree Boulevard 

Victorville, CA 92395 

Locations, dates, and times of hearings will also be posted on the Federal Railroad Administration 

Web Site (www.fra.dot.gov), and notice will be mailed to interested parties and published in 

newspapers of general circulation. 

Comments on this EIS are due by Friday, May 22, 2009, and should be sent to the Federal 

Railroad Administration by mail addressed to the: 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. MS-20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: DesertXpress EIS 

Comment on the Draft DesertXpress High-Speed Train EIS must be received by Friday, 

May 22, 2009. 

Visit the Federal Railroad Administration Web Site [www.fra.dot.gov], where you may: 

• View and download the Draft EIS 

• Request a CD-ROM of the Draft EIS 

• Find a location near you to review a copy of the Draft EIS 

• Find the dates and information on planned hearings and meetings 

Printed copies of the Draft EIS have been placed in the following locations: 

Victorville City Library 

15011 Circle Drive 

Victorville, CA 92395 

Barstow Library 

304 East Buena Vista 

Barstow, CA 92311 

Las Vegas Library 

833 Las Vegas Blvd. North 

Las Vegas, NV 89101 

To conserve resources this document was printed on 100% recycled paper. Please recycle the 

paper again once you have finished with it and no longer need a copy. 
March 2009 Draft EIS 

i 

Table of Contents 

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................ES-1

ES-1 Introduction and Background....................................................................ES-1

ES-2 Purpose and Need.......................................................................................ES-1

ES-3 Alternatives.................................................................................................ES-1

ES-4 Summary of Environmental Effects ......................................................... ES-4

ES-5 Avoidance and Minimization of Adverse Effects.................................... ES-47

ES-6 Public and Agency Involvement.............................................................. ES-47

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose Of The Proposed Project ................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Need For The Proposed Project ................................................................... 1-5

1.4 Major Authorizing Laws And Regulations ................................................ 1-10

1.5 Relationship to Other Federal Agency Policies, Plans, And Programs .... 1-14

1.6 Relationship To Other Transportation Projects and Plans In The Study 

Area ............................................................................................................. 1-16

1.7 Issues Raised During Scoping.................................................................... 1-21

2.0 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Summary of Alternatives..............................................................................2-3

2.2 Development of Action Alternatives............................................................2-9

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Further Analysis.............. 2-14

2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail......................................................................2-18

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 

AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................... 3-1

3.1 Land Use & Community Impacts...............................................................3.1-1

3.2 Growth ....................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands.................................................................. 3.3-1

3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services.................................................................... 3.4-1

3.5 Traffic and Transportation........................................................................ 3.5-1
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

ii 

3.6 Visual Resources........................................................................................ 3.6-1

3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ................................................... 3.7-1

3.8 Hydrology And Water Quality ..................................................................3.8-1

3.9 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.10 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 3.10-1

3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change ..................................................3.11-1

3.12 Noise and Vibration................................................................................. 3.12-1

3.13 Energy ...................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.14 Biological Resources................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation.............................................................................3.15-1

3.16 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................ 3.16-1

3.17 Irretreivable and Irreversible Committments of Public Resources........3.17-1

3.18 Short Term Uses Versus Long Term Productivity.................................. 3.18-1

3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................. 3.19-1

4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION...................................................4-1

4.1 Public involvement And Outreach............................................................... 4-1

4.2 Agency Involvement .....................................................................................4-4

5.0 PREPARERS AND REFERENCES....................................................... 5-1

5.1 List of Preparers ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 References.....................................................................................................5-3
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

iii 

List of Figures 

Figure ES-1 Project Location.................................................................................... ES-2 

Figure 1.1 Project Location....................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-2 Conceptual Alignment Routing via I-15 Median Through Barstow .... 1-23

Figure 2.1-1 Action Alternatives ................................................................................2-36

Figure 2-1.2 Action Alternatives (2) ..........................................................................2-37

Figures 2-1.3 Action Alternatives (3) ......................................................................... 2-38

Figure 2-1.4 Action Alternatives (4) ..........................................................................2-39

Figure 2-1.5 Action Alternatives (5) ......................................................................... 2-40

Figure 2-1.6 Action Alternatives (6) .......................................................................... 2-41

Figures 2-1.7 Action Alternatives (7)...........................................................................2-42

Figure 2-2 Cross Median Emergency Access..........................................................2-43

Figure 2-3 Typical Section, At Grade ..................................................................... 2-44

Figure 2-4 Typical Section, Retained Embankment ..............................................2-45

Figure 2-5 Typical Section, Grade Separated ........................................................ 2-46

Figure 2-6 Typical Section, DXE in the Median of I-15 .........................................2-47

Figure 2-7 Typical Section, DXE in the Median of I-15 at Overpass .................... 2-48

Figure 2-8 Typical Section, Retained Embankment in the I-15 Median .............. 2-49

Figure 2-9 Typical Section, Median Drainage Treatment..................................... 2-50

Figure 2-10 Victorville Station Site 1, Plan View...................................................... 2-51

Figure 2-11 Victorville Station Site 1, Section View .................................................2-52

Figure 2-12 Victorville Station Site 2, Plan View .....................................................2-53

Figure 2-13 Victorville Station Site 2, Section View.................................................2-54

Figure 2-14 Victorville OMSF Site Option 1 Plan View............................................2-55

Figure 2-15 Victorville OMSF site option 2, Plan View............................................2-56

Figure 2-16 Southern Station Option, Plan View.....................................................2-57

Figure 2-17 Southern Station Option, Section View ................................................2-58

Figure 2-18 Central Station A, Plan View .................................................................2-59

Figure 2-19 Central Station A, Section View ........................................................... 2-60

Figure 2-20 Central Station B, Plan View ................................................................. 2-61

Figure 2-21 Central Station B, Section View ............................................................2-62

Figure 2-22 Downtown Station Option, Plan View ..................................................2-63

Figure 2-23 Downtown Station Option, Section View ............................................ 2-64
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

iv 

Figure 2-24 Las Vegas Area MSF Site Options.........................................................2-65

Figure 2-25 Sloan MSF Site Option, Plan View....................................................... 2-66

Figure 2-26 Wigwam MSF Site Options, Plan View.................................................2-67

Figure 2-27 Robindale MSF Site Option, Plan View ............................................... 2-68

Figure 3.1-1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Multiple Use Classifications, 

California Desert Conservation Area ................................................... 3.1-4

Figure 3-1.2 BLM Planning Areas............................................................................. 3.1-7

Figure 3-1.3 Victorville Area ................................................................................... 3.1-12

Figure 3-1.4 Clark County and City of Las Vegas Planning Areas ......................... 3.1-14

Figure 3-1.4 Clark County and City of Las Vegas Planning Areas ......................... 3.1-14

Figure 3-1.5 Land Ownership (1) .............................................................................3.1-17

Figure 3-1.6 Land Ownership (2)............................................................................ 3.1-18

Figure 3-1.7 Land Ownership (3)............................................................................ 3.1-19

Figure 3-1.8 Land Ownership (4) ...........................................................................3.1-20

Figure 3-1.9 Land Ownership (5)............................................................................ 3.1-21

Figure 3-1.10 Land Ownership (6) ...........................................................................3.1-22

Figure 3-1.11 Land Ownership (7)............................................................................ 3.1-23

Figure 3-1.12 Land Use/Zoning Designations (1) .................................................... 3.1-25

Figure 3-1.13 Land Use/Zoning Designations (2) ...................................................3.1-26

Figure 3-1.14 Land Use/Zoning Designations (3) ................................................... 3.1-27

Figure 3-1.15 Land Use/Zoning Designations (4) ...................................................3.1-28

Figure 3-1.16 Land Use/Zoning Designations (5)....................................................3.1-29

Figure 3-1.17 Land Use/Zoning Designations (6) ...................................................3.1-30

Figure 3-1.18 Land Use/Zoning Designations (7).................................................... 3.1-31

Figure 3-1.19 Environmental Justice: California (1)................................................3.1-48

Figure 3-1.20 Environmental Justice: Nevada (1)....................................................3.1-49

Figure 3.3-1 Farmlands within Direct/Indirect Impact Areas, Segment 1..............3.3-9

Figure 3.3-2 Farmalnds within Direct/Indirect Impact Areas, Segment 2 ...........3.3-10 

Figure 3.3-3 Farmlands within Direct/Indirect Impact Areas, Segment 3 ........... 3.3-11 

Figure 3.3-4 BLM Grazing Alotments..................................................................... 3.3-12 

Figure 3.5-1 Freeway Sections Evaluated............................................................... 3.5-13

Figure 3.5-2 Existing Lane Geometry, Victorville Station Site 1............................ 3.5-16 

Figure 3.5-3 Existing Lane Geometry, Victorville Station Site 2 ........................... 3.5-17

Figure 3.5-4 Future Year 2030 Intersection Lane Geometry, Victorville Station 

Site 1 ....................................................................................................3.5-18

Figure 3.5-5 Future Year 2030 Intersection Lane Geometry, Victorville Station 

Site 2.................................................................................................... 3.5-19
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

v 

Figure 3-5.6 Victorville Station Site 1 Trip DistributionFigure 3-5.7 Victorville 

Station Site 2 Trip Distribution.......................................................... 3.5-21

Figure 3-5.7 Victorville Station Site 2 Trip Distribution........................................3.5-22

Figure 3-5.8 Southern Station Existing Intersection Geometry ............................3.5-23

Figure 3-5.9 Central Station A Existing Intersection Geometry............................3.5-24

Figure 3-5.10 Central Station B Existing Intersection Geometry............................3.5-26

Figure 3-5.11 Downtown Station Existing Intersection Geometry .........................3.5-27

Figure 3-5.12 Southern Station Trip Distribution................................................... 3.5-28

Figure 3-5.13 Central Station A Trip Distribution ...................................................3.5-29

Figure 3-5.14 Central Station B Trip Distribution .................................................. 3.5-30

Figure 3-5.15 Downtown Station Trip Distribution................................................. 3.5-31

Figure 3.6-1 Visual Resources (1) ............................................................................ 3.6-6

Figure 3.6-2 Visual Resources (2) .............................................................................3.6-7

Figure 3.6-3 Visual Resources (3) ............................................................................ 3.6-8

Figure 3.6-4 Visual Resources (4)............................................................................ 3.6-9

Figure 3.6-5 Visual Resources (5) ...........................................................................3.6-10

Figure 3.6-6 Visual Resources (6)........................................................................... 3.6-11

Figure 3.6-7 Visual Resources (7) ...........................................................................3.6-12

Figure 3.6-8 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern..........................................3.6-14

Figure 3.6-9 Existing Conditions, Victorville Station Site B ................................. 3.6-20

Figure 3.6-10 Existing Conditions, Victorville OMSF Site 2....................................3.6-21

Figure 3.6-11 Location where Segment 1 Diverges from I-15................................. 3.6-23

Figure 3.6-12 Existing Conditions, Mojave River Crossing .................................... 3.6-24

Figure 3.6-13 Existing Conditions, City of Barstow .................................................3.6-25

Figure 3.6-14 Existing Conditions, View from Harvard Road Looking East ......... 3.6-29

Figure 3.6-15 Existing Conditions, Community of Baker ....................................... 3.6-30

Figure 3.6-16 Existing Conditions, Mojave National Preserve at Nipton Road..... 3.6-32

Figure 3.6-17 Segment 4B Tunnel Location............................................................ 3.6-33

Figure 3.6-18 Existing Conditions, Community of Primm ......................................3.6-35

Figure 3.6-19 Existing Conditions near the I-15/I-215 Intersection ...................... 3.6-36

Figure 3.6-20 Existing Conditions, Las Vegas MSF Option 1 (Wigwam Avenue) 

Site...................................................................................................... 3.6-38

Figure 3.6-21 Existing Conditions, Central Station A Site...................................... 3.6-39

Figure 3.6-22 View Comparison, Victorville Station Site B ..................................... 3.6-51

Figure 3.6-23 View Comparison, Victorville OMSF Site 2.......................................3.6-54

Figure 3.6-24 View Comparison, Where Segment 1 Diverges from I-15 .................3.6-56

Figure 3.6-25 View Comparison, Mojave River Crossing Location .........................3.6-59

Figure 3.6-26 View Comparison, City of Barstow ................................................... 3.6-60
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

vi 

Figure 3.6-27 View Comparison, Mojave National Preserve at Nipton Road .........3.6-65

Figure 3.6-28 View Comparison, Segment 4B Tunnel Portal Location.................. 3.6-66

Figure 3.6-31 View Comparison, Las Vegas MSF Option 1 (Wigwam Avenue) 

Site.......................................................................................................3.6-73

Figure 3-7.1 Architectural Resources Within or Adjacent to the APE ..................3.7-44

Figure 3.8-1 Hydrology and Floodplains................................................................3.8-12

Figure 3.8-2 Hydrology and Floodplains................................................................3.8-13

Figure 3.8-3 Hydrology and Floodplains................................................................3.8-14

Figure 3.8-4 Hydrology and Floodplains................................................................3.8-15

Figure 3.8-5 Hydrology and Floodplains................................................................3.8-16

Figure 3.8-6 Hydrology and Floodplains................................................................ 3.8-17

Figure 3.8-7 Hydrology and Floodplains................................................................3.8-18

Figure 3.9-1 Principle Regional Faults in California Study Area.............................3.9-7 

Figure 3.9-2a Faults and Fissures in the Nevada Study Area (1).............................3.9-12

Figure 3.9-2b Faults and Fissures in the Nevada Study Area (2) ............................3.9-13

Figure 3.9-3 Regional Geological Map....................................................................3.9-21 

Figure 3-9.4 Regional Geologic Map – Segment 3 ................................................ 3.9-24

Figure 3.9-5 Regional Geologic Map – Segments 3-5 ........................................... 3.9-30

Figure 3.9-6 Regional Geological Map....................................................................3.9-31 

Figure 3-10.1 Properties of Environmental Concern .............................................3.10-10

Figure 3.11-1 Mojave Desert Air Basin....................................................................3.11-19 

Figure 3.11-2 Clark County and Metropolitan Areas ............................................. 3.11-20 

Figure 3.12-1 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels .....................................................3.12-2

Figure 3.12-2 Distance within which Surprise Can Occur for High Speed Trains.. 3.12-3

Figure 3.12-3 Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure ..................................3.12-4

Figure 3.12-4 Typical Ground-Borne Vibration Levels and Criteria ....................... 3.12-5

Figure 3.12-5 Noise Impact Criteria for High-Speed Rail Projects .........................3.12-8

Figure 3.12-6 Vibration Level vs. Distance for High-Speed Rail Operations........ 3.12-14

Figure 3.12-7 Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations..................................... 3.12-18

Figure 3.12-8 Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations..................................... 3.12-19

Figure 3.12-9 Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations.....................................3.12-20

Figure 3.12-10 Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations..................................... 3.12-21

Figure 3.12-11 Noise and Vibration Mitigation Locations ......................................3.12-44

Figure 3.12-12 Noise and Vibration Mitigation Locations ......................................3.12-45

Figure 3.13-1 Energy Market Modular Regions..................................................... 3.13-10

Figure 3.14-1 Biological Resources.........................................................................3.14-20

Figure 3.14-2 Biological Resources......................................................................... 3.14-21

Figure 3.14-3 Biological Resources.........................................................................3.14-22
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

vii 

Figure 3.14-4 Biological Resources.........................................................................3.14-23

Figure 3.14-5 Biological Resources.........................................................................3.14-24

Figure 3.14-6 Biological Resources.........................................................................3.14-25

Figure 3.14-7 Biological Resources.........................................................................3.14-26

Figure 3.14-7 Biological Resources.........................................................................3.14-26

Figure 3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (1) .................................................................. 3.15-9

Figure 3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (1) .................................................................. 3.15-9

Figure 3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (1) .................................................................. 3.15-9

Figure 3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (1) .................................................................. 3.15-9

Figure 3.15-5 Clean Air Act Designated Class I Areas ........................................... 3.15-13

Figure 3.15-6 Section 4(f) Use of the Mojave National Preserve...........................3.15-22

Figure 3.16-1 Potential Cumulative Projects (1) ......................................................3.16-4

Figure 3.16-2 Potential Cumulative Projects (2)...................................................... 3.16-5

Figure 3.16-3 Potential Cumulative Projects (3) ......................................................3.16-6

Figure 3.16-4 Potential Cumulative Projects (4)...................................................... 3.16-7

Figure 3.16-5 Potential Cumulative Projects (5) ......................................................3.16-8

Figure 3.16-6 Potential Cumulative Projects (6)......................................................3.16-9

Figure 3.16-7 Potential Cumulative Projects (7).................................................... 3.16-10
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

viii 

List of Tables 

Table ES-1 Comparison of Segment 1 Alternatives................................................ES-6 

Table ES-2 Comparison of Segment 2 Alternatives ..............................................ES-11 

Table ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 Alternatives ..............................................ES-16 

Table ES-4 Comparison of Segment 4 Alternatives .............................................ES-20 

Table ES-5 Comparison of Segment 5 Alternatives ............................................. ES-25 

Table ES-6 Comparison of Segment 6 Alternatives ............................................. ES-29 

Table ES-6a Segment 6 Station Site Option Comparison...................................... ES-34 

Table ES-7 Comparison of Segment 7 Alternatives .............................................ES-38 

Table ES-8 Comparison of Segment 8 Alternatives ............................................. ES-43 

Table 1.4-1 Federal Permits or Approvals Anticipated for Action Alternatives ..... 1-12

Table 1.4-2 State, Regional, and Local Agencies Consulted in EIS Process ............1-13

Table 2-1 Summary of Action Alternatives .............................................................2-4

Table 2-2 Alternatives Criteria ..............................................................................2-10

Table 2-3 Federal Agency Alternatives Criteria ....................................................2-10

Table 2-4 Reasons for Elimination of Potential Alignment Segments................. 2-15

Table 2-6 Summary of Key Operating Features, DEMU and EMU .....................2-25

Table 2-7 Temporary Construction Areas.............................................................2-35

Table 3.1-1 Permanently Impacted land by Generalized Land Use 

Designation, Rail Alignments (acres) ................................................ 3.1-33

Table 3.1-2 Compatibility of Land Use Types....................................................... 3.1-52

Table 3.1-3 Compatibility of Action Alternative Features with Surrounding 

Land Uses............................................................................................ 3.1-52

Table 3.1-4 Compatibility of Land Use Designations ........................................... 3.1-56

Table 3.1-5 Compatibility of Action Alternative Features with Land Use 

Designations ....................................................................................... 3.1-56

Table 3.2-1 San Bernardino County Desert Region Growth Projections 2000-

2030, Six City Sphere of Influence Areas ........................................... 3.2-8

Table 3.2-2 Aggregated Sphere of Influence Growth Projections within Desert 

Region, 2000-2030, Unincorporated San Bernardino County ......... 3.2-8

Table 3.2-3 City of Victorville Growth Projections ...............................................3.2-10

Table 3.2-4 Clark County Growth Projections ......................................................3.2-12

Table 3.2-5 City of Las Vegas Growth Projections................................................3.2-13

Table 3.2-6 Estimated Operational Employment by Location.............................3.2-16

Table 3.3-1 Acreage of Affected Farmland by Alternative....................................3.3-16
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

ix 

Table 3.4-1 Utilities and Public Services in Study Area .........................................3.4-5

Table 3.4-2 Potential Utility Infrastructure Conflicts in the Study Area .............3.4-21

Table 3.5-1 Expected Vehicle Reduction on I-15 ....................................................3.5-2

Table 3.5-2 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service 

Description............................................................................................3.5-5

Table 3.5-3 Intersection Level of Service Description............................................3.5-5

Table 3.5-4 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – Existing Conditions; 2013 

and 2030 Baseline Conditions ...........................................................3.5-33

Table 3.5-5 Ramp Junction Level of Service – Existing Conditions; 2013 and 

2030 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................3.5-34

Table 3.5-6 Victorville Station Site Option 1 – Existing Conditions; 2013 and 

2030 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................3.5-35

Table 3.5-7 Victorville Station Site Option 2 – Existing Conditions; 2013 and 

2030 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................3.5-36

Table 3.5-8 Southern Station Site Option – Existing Conditions; 2013 and 

2030 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................3.5-37

Table 3.5-9 Central Station Site Option A – Existing Conditions; 2013 and 

2030 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................3.5-39

Table 3.5-10 Central Station Site Option B – Existing Conditions; 2013 and 

2030 Baselines................................................................................... 3.5-40

Table 3.5-11 Downtown Las Vegas Station Site Option, Existing Conditions, 

2013 and 2030 Baseline Conditions .................................................. 3.5-41

Table 3.5-12 Freeway Mainline Level of Service: 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions .................................................................................3.5-46

Table 3.5-13 Freeway Mainline Level of Service: 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus 

DEMU Conditions ..............................................................................3.5-47

Table 3.5-14 Ramp Junction Level of Service: 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions .................................................................................3.5-49

Table 3.5-15 Ramp Junction Level of Service: 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus 

DEMU Conditions ............................................................................. 3.5-50

Table 3.5-16 Victorville Option 1: Existing, 2013, & 2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions LOS...................................................................................3.5-52

Table 3.5-17 Victorville Station Site Option 1: Existing, 2013, & 2030 Baseline 

plus DEMU Conditions LOS ..............................................................3.5-54

Table 3.5-18 Victorville Station Site Option 2: Existing, 2013, & 2030 Baseline 

plus EMU Conditions LOS .................................................................3.5-56

Table 3.5-19 Victorville Station Site Option 2: Existing Conditions, Existing 

Conditions Plus DEMU Conditions, and 2013 & 2030 Baseline 

plus DEMU Conditions LOS ..............................................................3.5-58

Table 3.5-20 Southern Station Site Option, 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus 

DEMU Conditions LOS ......................................................................3.5-61
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

x 

Table 3.5-21 Southern Station Site Option 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions LOS...................................................................................3.5-62

Table 3.5-22 Central Station A Site Option – 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions LOS .........................................................................3.5-65

Table 3.5-23 Central Station A Site Option 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus DEMU 

Conditions LOS...................................................................................3.5-66

Table 3.5-24 Central Station B Site Option 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions LOS...................................................................................3.5-69

Table 3.5-25 Central Station B Site Option 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus DEMU 

Conditions LOS...................................................................................3.5-70

Table 3.5-26 Downtown Station Site Option 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions LOS...................................................................................3.5-73

Table 3.5-27 Downtown Station Site Option, 2013 and 2030 Baseline plus 

DEMU Conditions LOS ......................................................................3.5-74

Table 3.5-28 Action Alternative Mitigations – EMU Alternatives .........................3.5-75

Table 3.5-29 Action Alternative Mitigations – DEMU Alternatives ..................... 3.5-82

Table 3.6-1 ACEC Within 1 Mile of Project Area .................................................. 3.6-15

Table 3.6-2 Summary of Existing Landscape Sensitivities, Visual Resources, 

and KOPs by Segment ........................................................................ 3.6-17

Table 3.6-3 Summary of Key Observation Points, Segment 1 ..............................3.6-19

Table 3.6-4 Rating and Scoring System for Vividness, Intactness, Unity, and 

Adjacent Character ............................................................................ 3.6-43

Table 3.6-5 Visual Quality and Visual Sensitivity Rating Determination........... 3.6-44

Table 3.6-6 Summary of Visual Effects by Segment ............................................ 3.6-48

Table 3.7-1 Native American Consultation............................................................3.7-11

Table 3.7-2 Historic Properties Consultation .......................................................3.7-16

Table 3.7-3 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Recommended Treatment 

for Paleontological Resources, by Sensitivity Category .................... 3.7-18

Table 3.7-4 Summary of Archaeological Resources in the APE........................... 3.7-21

Table 3.7-6 Identified Archaeological Resources in Segment 1 ...........................3.7-27

Table 3.7-7 Identified Archaeological Resources in Segment 2 .......................... 3.7-30

Table 3.7-8 Identified Archaeological Resources in Segment 3 ...........................3.7-32

Table 3.7-9 Identified Archaeological Resources in Segment 4...........................3.7-35

Table 3.7-10 Identified Archaeological Resources in Segment 5 ...........................3.7-37

Table 3.7-11 Identified Archaeological Resources in Segment 6 ...........................3.7-38

Table 3.7-12 NRHP-Eligible Architectural Resources Within/Adjacent to the 

APE..................................................................................................... 3.7-40

Table 3.7-13 Geology and Paleontology of the DXE Alignment, by Segment .......3.7-46

Table 3.7-14 Archaeological Resources Potentially Affected within the APE of 

Segment 1............................................................................................3.7-55
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xi 

Table 3.7-15 Archaeological Resources Potentially Affected within the APE of 

Segment 2 ...........................................................................................3.7-56

Table 3.7-16 Archaeological Resources Potentially Affected within the APE of 

Segment 3 ...........................................................................................3.7-58

Table 3.7-17 Archaeological Resources Potentially Affected within the APE of 

Segment 4 .......................................................................................... 3.7-60

Table 3.7-18 Archaeological Resources Potentially Affected within the APE of 

Segment ..............................................................................................3.7-62

Table 3.7-19 Archaeological Resources Potentially Affected within the APE of 

Segment 6 ...........................................................................................3.7-64

Table 3.8-1 Monthly Climate Summary for Victorville, CA (July 1948–June 

2007).................................................................................................... 3.8-8

Table 3.8-2 Monthly Climate Summary for Las Vegas, NV (February 1937–

December 2007) .................................................................................. 3.8-9

Table 3.8-3 Mojave River Flow near Barstow from 1930 to 2007 .......................3.8-21

Table 3.8-4 Summary of Hydrology and Water Resources Affected by 

Alternative A, Alternative B, and Option C....................................... 3.8-28

Table 3.8-5 Direct Impacts to Water Resources .................................................. 3.8-29

Table 3.8-6 Direct Impacts to the 100-Year Floodplain ...................................... 3.8-33

Table 3.8-7 Peak Discharge of Stations (100-year 24-hour storm event)........... 3.8-38

Table 3.9-1 Range of Annual Rainfall Totals at Selected Alignment Locations ....3.9-3

Table 3.9-2 Depth To Groundwater in California Borings .....................................3.9-4

Table 3.9-3 Principal Regional Faults in California Study Area.............................3.9-5

Table 3.9-4 Estimated Peak Horizontal Ground Accelerations Anticipated 

Along Segments of the Alignment......................................................3.9-16

Table 3.9-5 Geologic Units Segment 1.................................................................. 3.9-20

Table 3.9-6 Geologic Units Segments 2A/2B....................................................... 3.9-22

Table 3.9-7 Geologic Units Segments 3A/3B........................................................3.9-27

Table 3.9-8 Geologic Units Segments 4A/4B....................................................... 3.9-28

Table 3.9-9 Geologic Units Segments 5A/5B ....................................................... 3.9-29

Table 3.9-10 Geologic Units Segments 6A/6B....................................................... 3.9-32

Table 3.9-11 Geologic Units Option C.................................................................... 3.9-33

Table 3.9-12 Relative Effects of Environmental Consequences............................ 3.9-34

Table 3.9-13 Operational Period Mitigation Measure Applicability ......................3.9-45

Table 3.9-14 Construction Period Mitigation Measure Applicability ....................3.9-45

Table 3.10-1 Environmental Database Review – Segment 1.................................3.10-11

Table 3.10-2 Aerial Photograph Review, Segment 1..............................................3.10-11

Table 3.10-3 Environmental Database Review – Segment 2 ............................... 3.10-12

Table 3.10-4 Aerial Photographs, Segments 2A/2B ............................................. 3.10-12
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xii 

Table 3.10-5 Properties of Hazardous Materials Concern, Segment 2 ................ 3.10-12

Table 3.10-6 Environmental Database Review – Segment 3 ............................... 3.10-13

Table 3.10-7 Properties of Hazardous Materials Concern – Segment 3.............. 3.10-14

Table 3.10-8 Environmental Database Review – Segment 4 ............................... 3.10-14

Table 3.10-9 Properties of Hazardous Materials Concern – Segment 4.............. 3.10-15

Table 3.10-10 Environmental Database Review – Segment 5 ............................... 3.10-15

Table 3.10-11 Environmental Database Review – Segments 6 and 7.................... 3.10-16

Table 3.10-12 Aerial Photographs, Segments 6 and 7 ............................................ 3.10-16

Table 3.10-13 Properties of Hazardous Materials Concern – Segments 6 and 7 .. 3.10-17

Table 3.10-14 Environmental Database Review – Option C.................................. 3.10-18

Table 3.10-15 Properties of Hazardous Materials Concern – Option C ................ 3.10-19

Table 3.10-16 Mitigation Measure Applicability ....................................................3.10-22

Table 3.11-1 National and State (California and Nevada) Ambient Air Quality 

Standards ...........................................................................................3.11-10

Table 3.11-2 Threshold Values Used to Determine Impact Significance .............3.11-14

Table 3.11-3 Federal Attainment Status for Mojave Desert Air Basin and Clark 

County................................................................................................3.11-18

Table 3.11-4 Year 2007 Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions (tons per year)a ............................................................... 3.11-22

Table 3.11-5 Summary of Air Quality Data at Victorville, Park Avenue Station 

(CARB Site 36306) ........................................................................... 3.11-22

Table 3.11-6 Summary of Air Quality Data at Clark County – Orr Monitoring 

Station, J.D. Smith Monitoring Station, and Sunrise Acres 

Monitoring Station ........................................................................... 3.11-24

Table 3.11-7 No Action Alternative Year 2013 and Year 2030 Regional Criteria 

Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year)a ............ 3.11-26

Table 3.11-8 Opening Year 2013 Mojave Desert Air Basin Regional Criteria 

Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year)a ............ 3.11-28

Table 3.11-9 Horizon Year 2030 Mojave Desert Air Basin Regional Criteria 

Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) ............. 3.11-29

Table 3.11-10 Opening Year 2013 Clark County Regional Criteria Pollutant and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year)..................................... 3.11-30

Table 3.11-11 Horizon Year 2030 Clark County Criteria Pollutant and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year)......................................3.11-31

Table 3.11-12 Year 2013 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Victorville Site 1 

Station Option................................................................................... 3.11-35

Table 3.11-13 Year 2013 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Victorville Site 2 

Station Option................................................................................... 3.11-36

Table 3.11-14 Year 2030 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Victorville Site 

1Station Option..................................................................................3.11-37
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xiii 

Table 3.11-15 Year 2030 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Victorville Site 2 

Station Option................................................................................... 3.11-38

Table 3.11-16 Year 2013 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas Southern 

Station Alternative............................................................................ 3.11-39

Table 3.11-17 Year 2013 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas Central 

Station “A” Alternative ..................................................................... 3.11-40

Table 3.11-18 Year 2013 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas Central 

Station “B” Alternative ......................................................................3.11-41

Table 3.11-19 Year 2013 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas 

Downtown Alternative...................................................................... 3.11-42

Table 3.11-20 Year 2030 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas Southern 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.11-43

Table 3.11-21 Year 2030 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas Central 

Station “A” Alternative ..................................................................... 3.11-44

Table 3.11-22 Year 2030 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas Central 

Station “B” Alternative ..................................................................... 3.11-45

Table 3.11-23 Year 2030 Local Area CO Hotspot Analysis – Las Vegas 

Downtown Alternative...................................................................... 3.11-46

Table 3.11-24 Estimate of Construction Emissions (tons per year) ...................... 3.11-48

Table 3.12-1 Land Use Categories and Metrics for High Speed Train Noise 

Impact Criteria....................................................................................3.12-6

Table 3.12-2 Interim Criteria for High-Speed Train Noise Effects on Animals ....3.12-9

Table 3.12-3 Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria ...................... 3.12-10

Table 3.12-4 Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for Special 

Buildings ........................................................................................... 3.12-10

Table 3.12-5 FRA Construction Noise Criteria ......................................................3.12-11

Table 3.12-6 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results.......... 3.12-16

Table 3.12-7 Noise Impacts for Segment 1 – EMU...............................................3.12-28

Table 3.12-8 Noise Impacts for Segment 1 – DEMU............................................3.12-29

Table 3.12-9 Noise Impacts for Segment 2, Alternative A – EMU.......................3.12-29

Table 3.12-10 Noise Impacts for Segment 2, Alternative A – DEMU.................... 3.12-31

Table 3.12-11 Vibration Impacts for Segment 2, Alternative A .............................3.12-32

Table 3.12-12 Noise Impacts for Segment 2, Alternative B – EMU.......................3.12-33

Table 3.12-13 Noise Impacts for Segment 2, Alternative B – DEMU....................3.12-34

Table 3.12-14 Vibration Impacts for Segment 2, Alternative B ............................. 3.12-35

Table 3.12-15 Noise Impacts for Segment 6, Alternative A – DEMU.................... 3.12-37

Table 3.12-16 Noise Impacts for Segment 6, Alternative B – EMU....................... 3.12-37

Table 3.12-17 Noise Impacts for Segment 6, Alternative B – DEMU....................3.12-38

Table 3.12-18 Noise Impacts for Segment 7, Alternative B – EMU.......................3.12-39

Table 3.12-19 Noise Impacts for Segment 7, Alternative B – DEMU ....................3.12-39
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xiv 

Table 3.12-20 Vibration Impacts for Segment 7, Alternative B .............................3.12-40

Table 3.12-21 Potential Noise Mitigation Locations, DEMU.................................3.12-42

Table 3.12-22 Potential Noise Mitigation Locations, EMU....................................3.12-43

Table 3.12-23 Potential Vibration Mitigation Locations ........................................ 3.12-47

Table 3.13-1 Direct Energy Consumption Factors ................................................. 3.13-5

Table 3.13-2 Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors ........................3.13-6

Table 3.13-3 EMM Regional Data and Projections, Regions 12 and 13.................3.13-9

Table 3.13-4 Annual Overall Operational Energy Consumption ......................... 3.13-13

Table 3.13-5 EMU Peak-Period Electricity Demand (MW) ................................. 3.13-14

Table 3.13-6 Construction-related Energy Consumption .................................... 3.13-16

Table 3.14-1 Summary of Vegetation Communities and Other Land Use Types 

in the Project Study Area.................................................................. 3.14-18

Table 3.14-2 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to Occur 

in Segment 1......................................................................................3.14-29 

Table 3.14-3 Sensitive Biological Resources with Potential to Occur in Segment 

2.........................................................................................................3.14-32

Table 3.14-4 Sensitive Biological Resources with Potential to Occur in Segment 

3.........................................................................................................3.14-34

Table 3.14-5 Sensitive Biological Resources with Potential to Occur in Segment 

4.........................................................................................................3.14-38

Table 3.14-6 Biological Resources with Potential to Occur in Segment 5 ........... 3.14-41

Table 3.14-7 Sensitive Biological Resources with Potential to Occur in 

Segments 6 or 7.................................................................................3.14-45 

Table 3.14-8 Biological Resources Affected by Action Alternatives....................3.14-50

Table 3.14-9 Special Status Species Affected by Action Alternatives................... 3.14-51

Table 3.14-10 Acreage of Permanent Effects to Desert Tortoise Habitat by 

Segment ............................................................................................3.14-54

Table 3.14-11 Acreage of Temporary Effects to Desert Tortoise Habitat by 

Segment ............................................................................................ 3.14-55

Table 3.14-12 Permanent Effects on Mohave Ground Squirrel Habitat by 

Segment ............................................................................................3.14-59

Table 3.14-13 Temporary Effects on Mohave Ground Squirrel Habitat by 

Segment ............................................................................................3.14-60

Table 3.14-14 Stream Crossings Impacted by Alignment Alternative by Segment 

...........................................................................................................3.14-65 

Table 3.15-1 Cultural Resource Sites Qualifying as Section 4(f) Resources.......... 3.15-5

Table 3.15-2 Summary of Use of Section 4(f) Resources ..................................... 3.15-14

Table 3.16-1 Utility and Public Service Providers ................................................3.16-26

Table 3.16-2 Summary of Visual Effects by Segment ...........................................3.16-29
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xv 

Table 3.16-3 Horizon Year 2030 Mojave Desert Air Basin Regional Criteria 

Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) .............3.16-40

Table 3.16-4 Horizon Year 2030 Clark County Criteria Pollutant and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year)..................................... 3.16-41
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xvi 

List of Appendices 

Refer to Volume II of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the following 

appendices. 

Appendix A-1 Plan and Profile Drawings 

Appendix A-2 Large-Scale Maps - Action Alternatives 

Appendix A-3 Detailed Station Site Plans 

Appendix A-4 Detailed Maintenance Facility Site Plans and Elevations 

Appendix A-4.1 Substation Typical Plan 

Appendix A-4.2 Typical Signal Tower Elevation 

Appendix A-5 Autotransformer Location Maps and Typical Footprint 

Appendix B Ridership Study 

Appendix C Review of Operations Plan 

Appendix D NRCS CPA 106 Forms 

Appendix E Traffic Impact Analysis 

Appendix F Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

 F-1 - Cultural Resources Setting 

 F-2 - Archeological Resources Tables 

 F-3 - Archeological Site Descriptions 

 F-4 - Paleontological Resources 

Appendix G SHPO and Tribal Consultation 

Appendix H Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 

Appendix I Hazardous Materials Assessment - February 2007 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xvii 

Appendix J Air Quality Calculations 

Appendix K Energy Data 

Appendix L Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species 

Appendix M Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

Appendix N Mohave Ground Squirrel Habitat Assessment 

Appendix O Vegetation Mapping Surveys 

Appendix P Scoping Meeting Summary 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS Table of Contents 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

xviii 

This page intentionally left blank.
March 2009 Draft EIS 

ES-1 

ES Executive Summary 

ES-1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (Applicant) proposes to construct and operate a privately 

financed interstate high-speed passenger train between Victorville, California and Las 

Vegas, Nevada The Applicant proposes to construct a fully grade-separated, dedicated 

double track passenger-only railroad along an approximately 200-mile corridor that 

would generally follow the I-15 freeway and existing railroad corridors/rights-of-way1 The 

project would also include construction of a passenger station in Victorville, California, a 

passenger station in Las Vegas, Nevada, a maintenance and operation facility in 

Victorville, an overnight maintenance and storage facility in the Las Vegas area and 

associated ancillary facilities needed to maintain and operate the proposed rail line. 

ES-2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the privately financed project is to provide reliable and safe passenger rail 

transportation using proven high-speed rail technology between Southern California 

(Victorville) to Las Vegas that is a convenient alternative to automobile travel on the 

Interstate-15 freeway (I-15), or air travel to and from Las Vegas, and that adds 

transportation capacity in the I-15 corridor. 

The need for a high-speed rail service stems from several factors: high and increasing 

travel demand amidst lagging capacity on the I-15 corridor, frequent accidents in the I-15 

corridor, and constraints to expansion of air travel. A more extensive discussion of the 

proposed action’s purpose and need is provided in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. 

ES-3 ALTERNATIVES 

The action alternatives considered in this EIS have been categorized into two primary sets: 

Alternative A and Alternative B. These are based on potential alignment routings for the 

200 mile corridor. For analytical purposes in this EIS, each of the alignments is divided 

into segments. Figure ES-1 shows the location of the action alternatives. FRA’s intent in 

organizing the document in this manner is to allow for lead 

 

1 The use any private railroad rights-of-way would be subject to approval by owner railroads. STB approval of 

the Project would not convey the authority to force any private railroad to sell, lease, or otherwise allow 

DesertXpress to use the right-of-way of an existing railroad. 
93

95

95

Hoover Dam

 Joshua Tree NP

Mojave National

Preserve

 Lake Mead NRA

 Death Valley NP

K E R N

L O S A N G E L E S

S A N B E R N A R D I N O

I N Y O M O H A V E

C L A R K

N Y E

Lancaster

Primm

Big Bear

Hesperia

Palmdale

Victorville

Bullhead City

San Bernardino

Burbank

Las Vegas

Paradise

Proposed Terminus

Segment 3 A & 3 B

Segment 4 A

Segment 4 B

Segment 5 A & 5 B

Segment 6 A & 6 B

Segment 7 A & 7 B

Option C

Barstow

Baker

Yermo

Segment 1

Segment 2 A

Segment 3 A & B

Segment 2 B

Segment 5 A & 5 B

Segment 6 A & 6 B

Segment 4 B

Option C

Segment 4 A

Segment 7 A & 7 B

15

15

40

15

373

190

127

178

160

160

127

163

68

18 247

58

215

18

247

372

62

138

138

395

Needles

Desert Xpress

P roject E IS Project Location ES-1

395

/2 B

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2B

NOT TO SCALE

Segment 2 A
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

Draft EIS ES-3 Alternatives

March 2009 Draft EIS 

ES-3 

and cooperating agencies to “mix and match” various segments in composing a preferred 

alternative. 

 Alternative A consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be 

within the median of the I-15 freeway. 

 Alternative B consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be 

within the fenced area of the I-15 freeway, adjacent to automobile travel 

lanes. 

The action alternatives would also include one of each of the following permanent physical 

facilities in addition to the rail alignment. As discussed below, this EIS examines multiple 

site options for these facilities. Similar to the consideration of rail segments noted above, 

FRA’s intent is to allow for the lead and cooperating agencies to compose their preferred 

alternative by incorporating one each of the following permanent physical facilities. With 

very few exceptions (noted in detailed discussions below), these physical facilities can 

connect to all rail alignment segments. 

• Victorville passenger station: Two site options (Site 1 and Site 2) 

immediately west of the I-15 freeway are under consideration. 

• Victorville Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility (OMSF):

Two site options (OMSF 1 and OMSF 2) immediately west of the I-15 freeway 

are under consideration. 

• Maintenance of Way (MOW) facility: One site option is under 

consideration adjacent to the I-15 freeway near the community of Baker. 

• Las Vegas area Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF): Three site 

options (Sloan Road MSF, Wigwam Avenue MSF, and Robindale Avenue MSF) 

are under consideration. 

• Las Vegas area passenger station: Four site options are under 

consideration in Clark County/City of Las Vegas: Southern Station, Central 

Station A, Central Station B, and Downtown Station. 

The Applicant has proposed two possible train technologies (referred to as “technology 

options”), each fully applicable to any set of the action alternatives: a diesel-electric 

multiple unit train (DEMU) or an electric multiple unit train (EMU). The two technology 

options would have similar right-of-way width requirements and largely the same 

construction footprint. However, the EMU option would also include overhead catenary 

wires and supports (located along the length of the rail alignment) three electrical 

substations (one at an OMSF, one at the MOW, and one at an MSF), and approximately 

seventeen transformers (each located on 4000 to 5000 square foot parcels at 10 mile 

intervals along the rail corridor). The EMU option would also require three electrical 

utility connections from the existing electrical grid, one in Victorville, one in Baker, and 

one near Sloan.
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of Environmental Effects

March 2009 Draft EIS 

ES-4 

See Chapter 2, Alternatives, for a more complete discussion of project features. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the highspeed train and associated facilities described above under the proposed Action 

Alternatives. The No Action Alternative is being studied as the baseline for comparison 

with the proposed action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would include existing 

access to Las Vegas via highway (I-15) and airport (McCarran International [LAS]) access. 

The No Action Alternative analyzes the system physical characteristics and capacity as 

they exist at the time of the EIS (2006-2009) and where possible to anticipate at the 

planning horizon year 2030, including planned and funded improvements that would be 

in place by 2030. 

Applicant’s Proposed Alternative 

The Applicant’s proposed alternative, pending the results of the environmental analysis, is 

comprised of a mix of segments from Alternative A and B alignments. The proposed 

action includes the following segments: 

1: Victorville to Lenwood 

 2A/B, 2A: Lenwood to Yermo 

 3B: Yermo to Mountain Pass 

 4A: Mountain Pass to Primm via southerly alignment across Nipton Road 

 5B: Primm to Sloan 

 6B: Sloan to Southern, Central A, Central B Stations 

7B: (Only if Downtown Station is selected) Twain Avenue to Downtown Station via 

I-15 corridor. 

Similar to the other action alternatives noted above, the applicant’s alternative would 

originate at one of the two Victorville station alternatives and terminate at one of the four 

Las Vegas station alternatives and would also include maintenance facilities in Victorville, 

Baker, and Clark County. All of these components are analyzed in detail within Chapter 3 

of this EIS. 

ES-4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Tables ES -1 through ES 7 summarize by project segment the impacts of the action 

alternatives, including all permanent facilities, and the No Action Alternative. 

Table ES-8 summarizes and compares the environmental effects unique to the two 

technology options (DEMU and EMU). 
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of Environmental Effects

March 2009 Draft EIS 

ES-5 

The information contained in the following tables is derived from the information, 

analysis and conclusions contained in this EIS and supporting appendices. 

 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of EMarch 2009 

ES-6 

Table ES-1: Comparison of Segment 1 

Alternatives 

Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

V

OM

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High within I-15 

corridor, Low outside 

Medium Medium High 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans High within I-15 

corridor, Low outside 

Medium-High Medium-High High, except 

for Low 

(residential) 

H

(r

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance None expected None expected None expected None expected NoNumber of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Would cross 2 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and poverty) 

Within EJ 

census block 

(minority) 

Within EJ 

census block 

(minority) 

Within 1 mile of 

2 

Wit

Growth Estimated permanent employment NA 361 to 463 permanent jobs in the Victorville Station 

and OMSF regardless of location 

Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expected None expected NoExtent of effects to TOD potential Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Beneficial 

effect 

Beneficial 

effect 

B

Extent of effects to economic vitality Construction period 

employment 

Beneficial construction and operational employment 

effects similar for all station/OMSF sites 

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 0 0 0 0 Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 0 0 0 0 Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment Yes; would traverse a 

BLM grazing 

allotment 

All Victorville station/OMSF site options are on land iden

grazing allotment but are immediately adjacent to I-15 

minimizing severance potential 

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No No No 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of EMarch 2009 

ES-7 

Table ES-1: Comparison of Segment 1 

Alternatives 

Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

V

OM

 Water Supply No demand 

associated 

No No No 

 Sewage/Wastewater No demand 

associated 

No No No 

 Stormwater Would require 

connections to 

existing and/or new 

facilities 

New conveyances would be required at all 

station/maintenance sites in Victorville 

 Solid Waste No generation No No No  Police Services No No No No  Fire/Emergency Services (Assumed No) (Assumed No) (Assumed No) (Assumed No) (AsPotential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can 

be mitigated 

co

be 

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between Victorville and I-40, traffic reduction associated with either DEMU or EM

traffic would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS 

 Station Area Intersections NA Delays would 

worsen at 4 

intersections 

Same as 

Station Site 1 

Delays would 

worsen at 2 

intersections 

St
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of EMarch 2009 

ES-8 

Table ES-1: Comparison of Segment 1 

Alternatives 

Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

V

OM

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Somewhat consistent 

within I-15 corridor; 

not consistent outside 

I-15 corridor 

All station and OMSF site options would be 

somewhat consistent 

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

In I-15 corridor, 

quality would be 

reduced from 

moderate to low. Outside corridor, 

quality would be 

reduced from 

mod/high to mod/low 

All station and OMSF site options would be 

somewhat consistent 

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

16 2 5 1 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 2491 0 12 0 Acres within a 100-year floodplain 2.8 13.5 1.9 0 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No No Yes 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of EMarch 2009 

ES-9 

Table ES-1: Comparison of Segment 1 

Alternatives 

Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

V

OM

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA 227 Mostly 

unpaved; not 

quantified 

243 

un

q

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture High High High High Expected likelihood of ground shaking High High High High Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate MExpected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate MHazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

0 0 0 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? No No No No Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

3 for EMU, 4 DEMU NA NA NA 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 for EMU, 1 for 

DEMU 

NA NA NA 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs EMU vs. No Actio

DEMU/EMU comparison table for discussion. 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement Yes, outside I-15 

corridor 

No No No 

Number of stream crossings 24 0 0 2 Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of EMarch 2009 

ES-10 

Table ES-1: Comparison of Segment 1 

Alternatives 

Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

V

OM

Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 159 93 92.4 114.5  Temporary 832.1 0 0 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 198.5 85.1 22.6 105.2  Temporary 803.3 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Yes No No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes No No No  Banded Gila Monster No No No No  Burrowing Owls Yes Yes Yes Yes  Roosting Bats Yes, at bridge 

crossings 

Yes, rock 

outcrop 

No No 

 American Badger Yes Yes Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles No No No No Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 0 0 0 0 Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 2 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-11 

Table ES-2: Comparison of Segment 2 

Alternatives

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No A

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High within I-15 corridor, 

Low near Barstow, Low to 

medium near Yermo 

High within I-15 corridor, 

High near commercial 

uses, Low near Barstow, 

Low near residential uses 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans High within I-15 corridor, 

Low outside 

Medium-High 

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance Linear division through 

Lenwood and Yermo 

Linear division through 

Lenwood 

Number of environmental justice(EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Within 1 mile of 4 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority/poverty) 

Within 1 mile of 4 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority/poverty) 

Expe

Segm

Growth Estimated permanent employment NA NA Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected Extent of effects to TOD potential None None Extent of effects to economic vitality Construction period 

employment 

Beneficial construction 

and operational 

employment effects 

similar for all 

station/OMSF sites 

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 3.37 acres 3.37 acres Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 6.75 acres 6.75 acres Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment No No Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems: 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-12 

Table ES-2: Comparison of Segment 2 

Alternatives

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No A

 Electricity and Gas No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

 Water Supply No demand associated No demand associated  Sewage/Wastewater No demand associated No demand associated  Stormwater Would require connections 

to new conveyance 

facilities 

Would require 

connections to existing 

and/or new conveyance 

facilities 

 Solid Waste No generation No generation  Police Services Barstow Police 

Department concern of 

train derailment 

emergency 

Barstow Police 

Department concern of 

train derailment 

emergency 

 Fire/Emergency Services (Assumed No) (Assumed No) Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Ass

confli

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between I-40 and the California-Nevada state line, 

traffic reduction associated with either DEMU or EMU 

levels of traffic would reduce freeway volumes and 

positively affect LOS 

LOS 

D to F 

 Station Area Intersections NA NA Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives Somewhat consistent in 

undeveloped and developed areas. 

Somewhat consistent in 

undeveloped and developed areas. 

Co

rema
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-13 

Table ES-2: Comparison of Segment 2 

Alternatives

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No A

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

In undeveloped areas, 

quality decreased from 

moderate/high to 

moderate. Low/moderate 

quality in developed 

areas. 

In undeveloped areas, 

quality decreased from 

moderate/high to 

moderate. Near I-15, 

quality decreased from 

moderate to low. 

Co

rema

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

20 24 Assu

Seg

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

3 7 Assu

Se

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 1128 11035 As

Segm

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 9.2 19.5 As

Seg

Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration No No Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture High near Barstow, Low 

near Yermo. 

High near Barstow, Low 

near Yermo. 

Expected likelihood of ground shaking High High Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate Moderate Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate near Barstow, 

Low near Yermo. 

Moderate near Barstow, 

Low near Yermo. 

Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 4 6 Air Quality & Global Climate Change 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-14 

Table ES-2: Comparison of Segment 2 

Alternatives

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No A

Exceed a state or federal standard? No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No Expected adverse construction period impact? No No Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 57 for EMU, 77 for DEMU 60 for EMU, 83 for DEMU Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

31 for EMU, 41 for DEMU 35 for EMU, 46 for DEMU 

Expected number of vibration impacts 19 23 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs E

See DEMU/EMU comparison table for discuss

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No NNumber of stream crossings 16 12 NSensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0  Temporary 4.6 acres of Mesquite 

Shrubland 

0 

Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 174.1 152.5  Temporary 740.2 585.2 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 23.2 40.3  Temporary 872 319.4 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Yes, near Mojave River No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes Yes  Banded Gila Monster No No  Burrowing Owls Yes Yes 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-15 

Table ES-2: Comparison of Segment 2 

Alternatives

Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No A

 Roosting Bats Yes, in caves and mines Yes, in caves and mines  American Badger Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep No No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles No No Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 60.9 acres of SuperiorCronese Desert Tortoise 

Critical Habitat 

60.7 acres of SuperiorCronese Desert Tortoise 

Critical Habitat 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0  Cultural Resources 6 7 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-16 

Table ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 

Alternatives 

Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Baker Maintenanc

Way Facility 

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High within I-15 corridor, 

Low outside 

High within I-15 corridor, 

Low outside 

High 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans High within I-15 corridor, 

Low outside 

Medium-High Medium-High 

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance None expected None expected None expected Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Would cross 3 EJ census 

blocks (minority and 

poverty) 

Would cross 3 EJ census 

blocks (minority and 

poverty) 

Outside any EJ cen

block 

Growth Estimated permanent employment NA NA 8 employees Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expected Extent of effects to TOD potential None None None Extent of effects to economic vitality Construction period 

employment 

Construction period 

employment 

Beneficial constructio

operational employm

effects 

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 0 0 0 Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 0.31 acres 0 0 Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment No, Adjacent to grazing 

lands 

No, Adjacent to grazing 

lands 

No, Adjacent to graz

lands 

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No 

 Water Supply No demand associated No demand associated No  Sewage/Wastewater No demand associated No demand associated No 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-17 

Table ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 

Alternatives 

Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Baker Maintenanc

Way Facility 

 Stormwater Would require connections 

to existing and/or new 

conveyance facilities 

Would require connections 

to existing and/or new 

conveyance facilities 

New conveyances wo

required 

 Solid Waste No generation No generation No  Police Services No No No  Fire/Emergency Services (Assumed No) (Assumed No) (Assumed No) Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts ca

mitigated 

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between I-40 and the California-Nevada state line, 

traffic reduction associated with either DEMU or EMU 

levels of traffic would reduce freeway volumes and 

positively affect LOS 

NA 

 Station Area Intersections NA NA NA Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives Somewhat consistent in 

I-15 corridor. Not 

consistent near 

wilderness areas in 

Preserve. 

Somewhat consistent in 

I-15 corridor. Not 

consistent near 

wilderness areas in the 

Mojave National 

Preserve. 

High level of contr

with views from 

Preserve. 

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

In Preserve, quality 

reduced from high to 

moderate. Outside 

Preserve, quality 

reduced from 

moderate/high to 

moderate. 

In Preserve, quality 

reduced from high to 

moderate. Outside 

Preserve, quality 

reduced from 

moderate/high to 

moderate. 

Consistent, as 

constructed near I

corridor. 

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

19 40 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-18 

Table ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 

Alternatives 

Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Baker Maintenanc

Way Facility 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

6 9 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 4059 8192 0 Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0 2.7 0 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration No No No Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA NA 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture High from Yermo to 

Baker, low from the east 

of Baker. 

High from Yermo to 

Baker, low from the east 

of Baker. 

High 

Expected likelihood of ground shaking Low/moderate from 

Yermo to Baker, 

moderate from the east 

of Baker. 

Low/moderate from 

Yermo to Baker, 

moderate from the east 

of Baker. 

Low/Moderate 

Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate Moderate Moderate Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 2 2 0 Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? No No No Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-19 

Table ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 

Alternatives 

Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Baker Maintenanc

Way Facility 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs EMU vs. N

comparison table for discussion. 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No No Number of stream crossings 105 117 1 Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 57.2 acres of Joshua 

Tree Woodland; 1.2 

acres of Mesquite 

Shrubland 

0 

 Temporary 0 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 7.6 620.5 0  Temporary 40.9 1852 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 70.1 61.5 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds No Yes Yes  Banded Gila Monster No Yes No  Burrowing Owls No Yes Yes  Roosting Bats No Yes, in caves and mines No  American Badger Yes Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep No Yes No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles No No No 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-20 

Table ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 

Alternatives 

Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Baker Maintenanc

Way Facility 

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 0 268.5 acres of SuperiorCronese Desert Tortoise 

Critical Habitat, 225.7 

acres of Ivanpah Desert 

Tortoise Critical Habitat, 

3.6 acres of Cronese 

ACEC. 

0 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 7 8 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-21 

Table ES-4: Comparison of Segment 4 Alternatives Segment 4A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No 

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses Low within the Preserve Low Compatibility with Land Use Plans High-Low Medium-High Number of housing units displaced 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance None expected None expected Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

2 1 

Growth Estimated permanent employment NA NA Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected Extent of effects to TOD potential None None Extent of effects to economic vitality Construction period 

employment 

Beneficial construction and 

operational employment 

effects similar for all 

station/OMSF sites 

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 0 0 Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 0 0 Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment None Yes; would traverse an 

allotment 

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

 Water Supply No demand associated No demand associated  Sewage/Wastewater No demand associated No demand associated 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-22 

Table ES-4: Comparison of Segment 4 Alternatives Segment 4A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No 

 Stormwater Would require connections 

to existing and/or new 

facilities 

Would require connections 

to new facilities 

 Solid Waste No generation No generation  Police Services No No  Fire/Emergency Services (Assumed No) (Assumed No) Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Ass

confl

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between I-40 and the California-Nevada state line, 

traffic reduction associated with either DEMU or EMU 

levels of traffic would reduce freeway volumes and 

positively affect LOS 

LOS w

to F 

 Station Area Intersections NA NA Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives Not consistent within and 

outside Clark Mountains. 

Somewhat within and 

outside Clark Mountains. 

Co

rema

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project Within Preserve, quality 

reduced from high to 

moderate. Moderate 

quality outside the 

Preserve. 

Moderate quality in Clark 

Mountains. High quality 

outside Clark Mountains. 

Co

rema

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

7 8 Assu

Se

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

1 1 Assu

Se

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-23 

Table ES-4: Comparison of Segment 4 Alternatives Segment 4A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 734 319 A

Seg

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0 0 A

Seg

Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration No No Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture High High Expected likelihood of ground shaking Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate High Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate High Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 1 0 Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No Expected adverse construction period impact? No No Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 0 0 Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 0 0 Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs 

See DEMU/EMU comparison table for discuss

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement Yes, outside I-15 Yes, outside I-15 Number of stream crossings 29 42 N
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-24 

Table ES-4: Comparison of Segment 4 Alternatives Segment 4A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

No 

Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0.5 acres of Mesquite 

Shrubland 

0 

 Temporary 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 42.2 111.8  Temporary 371.7 500.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0  Temporary 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to: Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes Yes  Banded Gila Monster Yes Yes  Burrowing Owls Yes Yes  Roosting Bats Yes, in caves and mines Yes, in caves and mines  American Badger Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep Yes Yes  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles No No Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 20.4 acres of Ivanpah 

Desert Tortoise Critical 

Habitat, 13.8 acres of the 

Mojave National Preserve

0 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 1 (Mojave National 

Preserve) 

0 

 Cultural Resources 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-25 

Table ES-5 Segment 5 Alternatives Comparison Segment 5A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF S

(Sloan Road) 

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High High High Compatibility with Land Use Plans Low near limited 

residential areas, Medium 

to high elsewhere* 

Low near limited 

residential areas, 

Medium to high 

elsewhere* 

Low 

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance None None None Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

0 0 0 

Growth Estimated permanent employment None None 154 to 251 jobs from 

station/maintenan

facility regardless 

location 

Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expected Extent of effects to TOD potential None None None Extent of effects to economic vitality Slight adverse effects to 

Primm and Jean 

Slight adverse effects to 

Primm and Jean 

None 

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland None None None Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland None None None Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment None None None Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No 

 Water Supply No No No  Sewage/Wastewater No No No 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-26 

Table ES-5 Segment 5 Alternatives Comparison Segment 5A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF S

(Sloan Road) 

 Stormwater No No No  Solid Waste No No No  Police Services No No No  Fire/Emergency Services New staff, equipment and 

a new station 

New staff, equipment 

and a new station 

No 

Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Assumed yes, b

conflicts can be miti

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines DEMU or EMU options would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect  Station Area Intersections NA NA NA Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives Consistent in Primm and 

Jean. Somewhat 

consistent elsewhere. 

Consistent Not consistent 

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

No change within Primm 

and Jean. Slight 

decrease in visual quality 

elsewhere. 

No change within Primm 

and Jean. Slight 

decrease in visual quality 

elsewhere. 

Adverse change in 

quality 

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

4 16 0 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

2 10 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-27 

Table ES-5 Segment 5 Alternatives Comparison Segment 5A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF S

(Sloan Road) 

Linear feet of impact to water resources 0 0 0 Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0 0.9 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration No No No Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA Unknown 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture None None None Expected likelihood of ground shaking Low to High Low to High Low to High Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate Moderate Moderate Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 0 0 0 Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? No No No Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 0 0 0 Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs EMU vs. N

comparison table for discussion. 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No No Number of stream crossings 49 49 1 Sensitive plant community acreage affected 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-28 

Table ES-5 Segment 5 Alternatives Comparison Segment 5A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF S

(Sloan Road) 

 Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0.2 203.2 9.7 to 13.9  Temporary 8.7 685.6 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes Yes Yes  Banded Gila Monster No No No  Burrowing Owls No Yes No  Roosting Bats No Yes No  American Badger Yes Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles Yes Yes Yes Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 0 0 0 Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 0 4 0 * Note: Overall Alternative A would create less of a conflict with existing land use designations than Alternative B since Alternative A median. 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-29 

Table ES-6: Segment 6 Alternatives 

Comparison

Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF 

Site 2 (Wigwam)

Las Veg

Site 3 (Ro

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High near 

undeveloped and 

commercial/industri

al uses, Low near 

residential uses 

High near 

undeveloped and 

commercial/industria

l uses, Low near 

residential uses 

High near 

undeveloped and 

commercial/industr

ial uses, Low near 

residential uses 

Medium to High Med

Compatibility with Land Use Plans Low near residential 

areas, Medium to 

high elsewhere* 

Low near residential 

areas, Medium to 

high elsewhere* 

Low near 

residential areas, 

Medium to high 

elsewhere 

Medium to High Lo

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 0 1 Extent of community disruption/severance 

None None Division through 

Sloan 

None No

Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Would cross 4 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and 

poverty) 

Would cross 4 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and 

poverty) 

Would cross 2 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and 

poverty) 

0 0 

Growth Estimated permanent employment None None None 154 to 251 jobs 

from the 

station/maintena

nce facility 

regardless of 

location 

154 to 2

from 

station/ma

facility reg

loca

Removal of obstacles to growth None None None None NoExtent of effects to TOD potential None None None None NoExtent of effects to economic vitality None None None Beneficial 

construction and 

operational 

employment 

effects similar for 

Bene

construc

opera

employme

similar 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-30 

Table ES-6: Segment 6 Alternatives 

Comparison

Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF 

Site 2 (Wigwam)

Las Veg

Site 3 (Ro

all station/OMSF 

sites 

station/OM

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland None None None None NoAcres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland None None None None NoPotential Severance of Grazing Allotment 

None None None None No

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No N

 Water Supply No No No No N Sewage/Wastewater No No No No N Stormwater No No No No N Solid Waste No No No No N Police Services No No No No N Fire/Emergency Services New staff, 

equipment and a 

new station 

New staff, 

equipment and a 

new station 

New staff, 

equipment and a 

new station 

No N

Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated 

Assumed yes, 

but conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Assumed 

conflicts 

mitig

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases: 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-31 

Table ES-6: Segment 6 Alternatives 

Comparison

Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF 

Site 2 (Wigwam)

Las Veg

Site 3 (Ro

 Freeway Mainlines DEMU and EMU options would reduce freeway volumes and 

positively affect LOS 

 

 Station Area Intersections NA NA NA NA NVisual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Somewhat 

consistent in 

undeveloped 

southern portions, 

consistent 

elsewhere. 

Somewhat 

consistent in 

undeveloped 

southern portions, 

consistent 

elsewhere. 

Consistent Consistent Consi

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

No change No change No change No change No ch

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

1 0 19 0 0 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

0 1 4 0 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 0 0 77 0 0 Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0.8 to 12.6 11.9 to 23.1 3.7 to 4.2 1.7 to 2.1 0 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No No N
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-32 

Table ES-6: Segment 6 Alternatives 

Comparison

Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF 

Site 2 (Wigwam)

Las Veg

Site 3 (Ro

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA NA Unknown Unkn

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

None None None None No

Expected likelihood of ground shaking Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to MExpected difficulty of excavation High High High High HigExpected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate ModeHazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

6 6 3 0 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No No NResult in CO Hotspot? No No No No NExpected adverse construction period impact? 

No No No No N

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

0 for EMU, 17 for 

DEMU 

22 for EMU, 7 for 

DEMU 

0 0 0 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 12 for EMU, 34 for 

DEMU 

0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 0 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs EMU vs. No Action. 

See DEMU/EMU comparison table for discussion. 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No Yes No NNumber of stream crossings 18 to 20 18 to 20 27 to 28 1 1 Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-33 

Table ES-6: Segment 6 Alternatives 

Comparison

Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Vegas MSF 

Site 2 (Wigwam)

Las Veg

Site 3 (Ro

 Temporary 0 0 0 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 40.2 38 78.2 3 8. Temporary 116.6 116.6 329.2 0 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No No N Nesting raptors/migratory birds No Yes Yes No N Banded Gila Monster No No No No N Burrowing Owls No Yes Yes No N Roosting Bats No Yes Yes No N American Badger Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No No N Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 

0 0 0 0 0 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 0 0 2 0 0 * Note: Overall Alternative A would create less of a conflict with existing land use designations than Alternative B since Alternative A is located in the freeway median. 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-34 

Table ES-6a: Segment 6 Station Site Option 

Comparison

Las Vegas Southern 

Station 

Las Vegas Central 

Station A 

Las Vegas Cent

Station B 

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High High High Compatibility with Land Use Plans High High High Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance None None None Number of environmental justice communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Within 1 mile of 2 Within 1 mile of 4 Located on an EJ b

within 1 mile of 

Growth Estimated permanent employment 154 to 251 jobs from the station/maintenance facility regardless of locatioRemoval of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expected Extent of effects to TOD potential Beneficial Effect Beneficial Effect Beneficial EffecExtent of effects to economic vitality Beneficial construction and operational employment effects similar for a

station/OMSF sites 

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland None None None Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland None None None Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment None None None Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No No No  Water Supply No No No  Sewage/Wastewater No No No  Stormwater No No No  Solid Waste No No No 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-35 

Table ES-6a: Segment 6 Station Site Option 

Comparison

Las Vegas Southern 

Station 

Las Vegas Central 

Station A 

Las Vegas Cent

Station B 

 Police Services No No No  Fire/Emergency Services No No No Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Assumed yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated 

Assumed yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated 

Assumed yes, but co

can be mitigate

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines DEMU and EMU options would reduce freeway volumes and positively affec Station Area Intersections Would change the LOS to 

unacceptable at 2 

intersections and 

contribute to failing LOS at 

others 

Would change the LOS to 

unacceptable at 3-4 

intersections depending on 

the technology option and 

contribute to failing LOS at 

others 

Would change the L

unacceptable at 

intersections an

contribute to failing L

others 

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives Consistent Consistent Consistent Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project No change No change No change Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

0 0 0 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-36 

Table ES-6a: Segment 6 Station Site Option 

Comparison

Las Vegas Southern 

Station 

Las Vegas Central 

Station A 

Las Vegas Cent

Station B 

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 11.9 12.6 with Alternative A, 

23.1 with Alternative B 

7.3 with Alternative A

with Alternative B, 0.

Option C 

Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration No No No Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

131 69 86 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture None None None Expected likelihood of ground shaking Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to ModeratExpected difficulty of excavation High High High Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 0 0 0 Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? No No No Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 0 0 0 Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs EMU vs. No Act

table for discussion. 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No No Number of stream crossings 2 0 0 Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-37 

Table ES-6a: Segment 6 Station Site Option 

Comparison

Las Vegas Southern 

Station 

Las Vegas Central 

Station A 

Las Vegas Cent

Station B 

Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds No No No  Banded Gila Monster No No No  Burrowing Owls No No No  Roosting Bats No No No  American Badger No No No  Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles No No No Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 0 0 0 Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-38 

Table ES-7: Segment 7 Alternatives 

Comparison 

Segment 7A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Ve

Downto

Statio

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High, Low near 

residential areas if 

the Downtown 

Station site is 

selected 

High, Low near 

residential areas if 

the Downtown 

Station site is 

selected 

High near undeveloped 

and commercial/industrial 

uses, Low near 

residential uses 

High 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans High High Low near residential 

areas, Medium to high 

elsewhere 

Medium t

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance None None None NonNumber of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Would cross 6 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and 

poverty) 

Would cross 6 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and 

poverty) 

Would cross 7 EJ census 

blocks (minority and 

poverty) 

Within a

block (m

and pov

Growth Estimated permanent employment None None None 154 to 25

from t

station/ma

ce fac

regardle

locati

Removal of obstacles to growth None None None None expExtent of effects to TOD potential None None None Beneficial Extent of effects to economic vitality Benefi

constructi

operati

employm

effects sim

all station/

sites 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-39 

Table ES-7: Segment 7 Alternatives 

Comparison 

Segment 7A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Ve

Downto

Statio

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland None None None NonAcres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland None None None NonPotential Severance of Grazing Allotment None None None NonUtilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No 

 Water Supply No No No No  Sewage/Wastewater No No No Final pr

plans w

reviewe

determ

sufficien

utility l

capac

 Stormwater No No No No  Solid Waste No No No No  Police Services No No No No  Fire/Emergency Services No No No No Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Assumed 

but conflic

be mitig

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines DEMU and EMU options would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-40 

Table ES-7: Segment 7 Alternatives 

Comparison 

Segment 7A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Ve

Downto

Statio

 Station Area Intersections NA NA NA Would ch

the LO

unaccepta

intersectio

contribu

failing LO

othe

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Consistent Consistent Consistent Consis

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

No change No change No change No cha

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

0 0 0 0 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 2 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 0 0 0 0 Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0.2 0.1 0 0 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No No 

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

Unknown Unknown Unknown 49 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-41 

Table ES-7: Segment 7 Alternatives 

Comparison 

Segment 7A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Ve

Downto

Statio

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

None None None Non

Expected likelihood of ground shaking Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to MoExpected difficulty of excavation High High High High Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate ModerHazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

2 2 3 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? 

No No No No 

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

0 2 for EMU, 1 for 

DEMU 

0 0 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 19 for EMU, 21 for 

DEMU 

0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 19 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, examining DEMU vs EMU vs. No Action. See D

discussion. 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No No No Number of stream crossings 0 0 0 0 Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-42 

Table ES-7: Segment 7 Alternatives 

Comparison 

Segment 7A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 7C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Las Ve

Downto

Statio

 Permanent 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds No No No No  Banded Gila Monster No No No No  Burrowing Owls No No No No  Roosting Bats No No No No  American Badger No No No No  Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

No No No No 

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 0 0 0 0 Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 0 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-43 

Table ES-8: Comparison of Incremental Impacts 

of Technology Options

Incremental Impacts of DEMU 

Technology Option 

Incremental Impa

Technology 

Land Use & Community Impacts Area of disturbance No change Additional 2 a

autotransformers an

utility corridors. Caten

located within the rail 

Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses NA NA Compatibility with Land Use Plans NA NA Number of housing units displaced None None Extent of community disruption/severance NA NA Number of environmental justice communities crossed by or adjacent to facilities 

None None 

Growth Estimated permanent employment None None Removal of obstacles to growth None None Extent of effects to TOD potential None None Extent of effects to economic vitality None None Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland None None Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland None None Potential Severance of grazing allotment None None Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas None Would require s

electrical power 

propulsio

 Water Supply None None  Sewage/Wastewater None None  Stormwater None None  Solid Waste None None 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-44 

Table ES-8: Comparison of Incremental Impacts 

of Technology Options

Incremental Impacts of DEMU 

Technology Option 

Incremental Impa

Technology 

 Police Services None None  Fire/Emergency Services None None Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

NA NA 

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines: Expected mode shift from freeway to train 

Up to 1100 vehicles/hour in peak 

hours by 2030 

Up to 1400 vehicle

peak hours b

 Station Area Intersections At least 2 California interactions 

plus at least 24 Nevada 

intersections would degrade in 

service 

At least 3 California 

plus at least 28 

intersections woul

service 

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives Consistent Less consistent du

of catenaries, auto

and utility co

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project None Additional effect 

inclusion of ca

autotransformers

corrido

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

None 5 additional resou

corrido

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

None 5 additional resou

corrido

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

None None 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources None Autotransformers w

feet of impact in the 

area 

Acres within a 100-year floodplain None None 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-45 

Table ES-8: Comparison of Incremental Impacts 

of Technology Options

Incremental Impacts of DEMU 

Technology Option 

Incremental Impa

Technology 

Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration None Autotransformer s

would result in 

alteratio

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture NA NA Expected likelihood of ground shaking NA NA Expected difficulty of excavation NA NA Expected likelihood of landslides NA NA Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern NA NA Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? Yes - 03 precursor emissions of 

Nox 

No 

Result in CO Hotspot? No No Expected adverse construction period impact? Not in exceedance of conformity 

thresholds 

Not in exceedance 

threshol

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 189 144 Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

143 97 

Expected number of vibration impacts 61 61 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? Change in energy consumption 

from No Action: -193,000 barrels 

of oil 

Change in energy 

from No Action: -44

of oil 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement None None Number of stream crossings None None Sensitive plant community acreage affected 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS ES-4 Summary of E

March 2009 

ES-46 

Table ES-8: Comparison of Incremental Impacts 

of Technology Options

Incremental Impacts of DEMU 

Technology Option 

Incremental Impa

Technology 

 Permanent None None  Temporary None None Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent None Autotransformers w

acres; utility corrido

9.7 acres (6.5 in Vic

Barstow, 2.5 i

 Temporary None None Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent None Autotransformer 2

0.16 acres; utility co

add 6.5 acres in 

 Temporary None None Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard None None  Nesting raptors/migratory birds None None  Banded Gila Monster None None  Burrowing Owls None None  Roosting Bats None None  American Badger None None  Desert Bighorn Sheep None None  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles None None Acres of Special Management Lands Lost None None Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation None None  Cultural Resources None Direct Use of 2 add

resource sites 

Corrido
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

Draft EIS ES-5 Avoidance and Minimization or Adverse Effects 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

ES-47 

ES-5 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS 

As currently planned, the DesertXpress Project would avoid and minimize many potential 

adverse environmental effects. Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences, and Mitigation Measures, includes in each topic area a discussion of 

mitigation measures and strategies. In addition, design and construction practices have 

been identified that would be employed as the DesertXpress project is developed further 

in the final design phase and construction stages. Key aspects of the design practices 

include, but are not limited to the following: 

• Minimize impact footprint and associated direct impacts to farmlands, parklands, 

biological, and water resources through maximum use of existing transportation 

corridors. 

• Increase safety and circulation and potentially reduce air pollution and noise impacts 

through use of grade separation at road crossings. 

• Placement of the majority of the DesertXpress alignment within existing highway and 

railroad rights-of-way, to reduce the need for additional right-of-way and minimize 

potential impacts to agricultural resources and other natural resources. 

• Cooperate with regulatory agencies to develop acceptable specific design and 

construction standards for steam crossings, including but not limited to maintaining 

open surface (bridged versus closed culvert) crossings, infrastructure setbacks, erosion 

control measures, sediment-controlling excavation/fill practices, and other best 

management practices. 

• Fully lined tunnels with impermeable material to prevent infiltration of groundwater 

or surface waters. 

ES-6 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

This Draft EIS has been prepared with extensive public and agency involvement, which is 

summarized in Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination. 
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

Draft EIS ES-5 Avoidance and Minimization or Adverse Effects 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

ES-48 

This page intentionally left blank.